Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumThose who would prefer to be unarmed during an active shooter scenario, raise your hands.
If you'd rather be unarmed during an active shooter event, please, sound off here.
Explain your logic for us.
As for me, I fall into the 'I'd rather be armed' category, if I had the bad fortune of an active shooter event happening in my immediate proximity.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)But I'm pretty certain there are many who would chose otherwise.
ileus
(15,396 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)armed, well qualified gun-owners surrounding me would not panic at the sound of live fire, but would quickly and accurately shoot whoever was instigating the event.
There have never been instances of shooters killing the wrong person,
there have never been instances of shooters missing the target,
every single gun owner is of course a cool-headed "Dirty Harry" type who would only hit the bad guys.
At least that is the way it happens in the Bruce Willis and Clint Eastwood movies.
Talk about swallowing Hollywood shoot 'em up fantasies whole hog....
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)have offered no explanations as to why as the OP asked?
I wonder why that is?
beevul
(12,194 posts)The logic of choosing to be armed is obvious, at least to me, the OP.
The logic of choosing not be unarmed, not so obvious, at least to me, the OP.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Please explain.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Start your own on that topic, and I'll happily chime in.
luvspeas
(1,883 posts)FLAMEBAIT
The question is: if you'd rather be unarmed during an active shooter event, why would you rather be unarmed?
Explain the logic for me, since I don't understand it on my own, and can't read minds.
That's not accusing anyone of being 'illogical' in any way.
Nothing flamebait about it.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)So that I have a chance of protecting myself and others. Maybe it doesn't work, but otherwise you are a lamb to the slaughter.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)who also thought they were protecting themselves and others?
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Are you asking how I would feel if I shot someone who was protecting someone else from another shooter? Or how I would feel if I shot a bystander in an attack? To answer what I think you are asking, I would feel awful if I shot a bystander during an attack, but I would still hope that I would attempt to help someone. I don't understand the concept that we should simply let a criminal kill someone else without attempting to help.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)was an active shooter, but instead was someone who also thought he could protect himself and others?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)To begin with, but if there are five other people that pull their guns out and they all think they are going to protect themselves and others- how would know which person with their gun out is the bad guy?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)As mentioned in post #32, there are several verified cases where armed bystanders intervened
and stopped spree shooters. You seem to be concerened about a theoretical incident.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I'm not making any claims, you are. I just asked how you would feel if you pulled out your gun and shot someone who was innocent and not the perp?
In essence, you are telling me- that because others (uncited) intervened and stopped spree shooters, that you think could successfully do the same. Right?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Shooting an innocent would be worse.
As for cites, here are six:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117291809
Clackamas man, armed, confronts mall shooter
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172165707
"Uber driver, licensed to carry gun, shoots gunman in Logan Square" - Chicago Tribune
http://www.richmond.com/news/article_1208ebdd-9ed5-54e1-bfd4-24a0c83a2852.html
Richmond Store owner grateful for man who shot robber
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/6-shot-at-new-life-church-gunman-2-churchgoers-dead
6 Shot At New Life Church; Gunman, 2 Churchgoers Dead
http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/19251374.html
Victims Released; No Charges Filed Against Reno Man In Winnemucca Shootings
...According to witnesses, Villagomez at some point stopped to reload his high-capacity handgun and began shooting again when he was shot and killed by another patron - a 48-year-old Reno man who had a valid concealed weapons permit.
The Reno man was initially taken into custody as a person of interest, but later released after Humboldt County District Attorney Russell Smith determined the shooting was justifiable homicide.
http://milwaukeecourieronline.com/index.php/2012/02/11/aldi-customer-speaks-out-on-aftermath-of-shooting/
A quick stop into the grocery store last week turned into more than what one local man was looking for, when he found himself faced with a potentially life versus death scenario at a local Aldi store. While standing in the checkout line, Nazir Al-Mujaahid says that he saw a man with a shotgun pointed at a cashier, demanding money. He also saw an unarmed security guard helpless with his hands up.
It seemed surreal at first, but once he was able to see that this was really happening, he heard the gunman yell for everyone in the store to stop moving, and the 20 plus customers held up their hands. Al-Mujaahid held up one hand, and with the other hand still at his side, he unholstered his semiautomatic 9mm Steyr handgun, cocked it at his side, and made eye contact another customer that was in the line of fire to move away from the gunman. Once, the customer was out of the way, he fired what he thought to be six or seven shots from about 20 feet away. The gunman fell into the exit door, dropped the gun and bag of money and fled the store. The police later learned that he had been driven to St. Josephs Hospital, and they were able to arrest him and his alledged accomplice. The two men, Dierre Cotton, 20 and Edyon Hibbler, 19, were charged with the Aldi robbery and two other holdups, a Radio Shack and a CVS store.
Al-Mujaahid said that he knew from his recent training that he needed to breathe, keep a clear head and commit to a decision.
DonP
(6,185 posts)With over 12 million concealed carry permits out there and more than 20 years in some states, I'm sure one of you can finally point to that ever actually happening, or even the "innocent bystander gets shot" scenario.
Or the other old saw, "the police won't know who the bad guy is and will shoot you".
Keep making imaginary things up, maybe someday it will come true.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)You have a good evening, oh psychic one.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Its possible he/she took Dons post that way.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)What do I need to cite? I merely asked a couple of questions. Other than that, all you have done is made assumptions.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Even with a gun, I am not the police. My job is to protect me and my family and the best way to do that is to get away when possible.
Identifying the bad guy is often quite easy. He is the one poonting the gun or shooting at unamred people, and if you are in the room it should be obvious who started it.
If I walk into a room and there is a mexican standoff, Im goong to leave the room if possible then call 911.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Such deductive reasoning is the thing of movie fantasy, I hear lately.
Keep talking like that and they'll accuse you of wanting to be the worlds greatest detective.
(incidentally, the fictitious 'worlds greatest detective', hates guns.)
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Who was shooting the guy who was shooting other people?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)it doesn't matter how it happens. How would you feel if you killed an innocent by mistake?
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Like crap. But that still doesn't mean I'd want someone to stand idly by while a family member was killed, or even while a criminal murdered a stranger. I'm not even sure what your world looks like. Is it one where everyone is a model citizen and the need for weapons doesn't exist? If not, then I'd hope someone has a firearm, since the defensive use of guns is a common occurrence in the U.S.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)And no, I don't feel that I live in a war zone and that there is a boogeyman around every corner. All I can say is that maybe I'd feel different if I lived in your world, I don't know.
sarisataka
(18,883 posts)As fast as I used to...
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)What would you say is the frequency of these events you encounter?
sarisataka
(18,883 posts)At me in several years now. I am quite happy with the status quo.
However should I be in such a situation I would like every option available
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)You know.
The part that reads like a 'fantasy movie'.
Oh, nevermind.
You made that shit up and are trying to attribute to me, a sentiment I haven't expressed.
And yet...why do I get the feeling that if I make shit up and try to falsely attribute it to you, I'll get a hide.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Those who would prefer to be unarmed during an active shooter scenario, raise your hands.
If you'd rather be unarmed during an active shooter event, please, sound off here.
Explain your logic for us.
As for me, I fall into the 'I'd rather be armed' category, if I had the bad fortune of an active shooter event happening in my immediate proximity.
My response:
So your post explicitly states that you fall into the "I'd rather be armed" category. Given that you wrote the words, where am I in error by presuming that you wrote your actual feelings? You also used the word "us" in the preceding sentence. The two sentences taken together clearly indicate to me that you are in the "armed response" category.
I made nothing up but simply responded with my opinion to what seems to be your opinion. No, you did not go into the mechanics of your response, but I did not say that my response represented your thoughts. They represented my thoughts about the logic of the "armed response" philosophy.
beevul
(12,194 posts)No. Sorry. You extrapolated from my preference of being armed, how I would behave if armed, and my mindset on how I would behave if armed.
You are assuming facts not in evidence.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)"I made nothing up but simply responded with my opinion to what seems to be your opinion. No, you did not go into the mechanics of your response, but I did not say that my response represented your thoughts. They represented my thoughts about the logic of the "armed response" philosophy."
My original response did not assign any behavior to you specifically, but was a generalization based on many things that I have read from people who feel that open carry and carry in general represents a rational approach to the problem of gun violence.
That covered, the next logical question to ask would be:
How would you behave, or rather, how do you feel that you would behave?
beevul
(12,194 posts)The sentence in question, which you agreed with, which WAS referring to me, said this:
Your reply to that was as follows:
You aren't very skilled at this. This being the cutesy 'I never said that' game.
Your original response agreed with that poster and in doing so, falsely attributed to me things not expressed by me.
You can play 'cute' about it but everyone here sees through it.
How kind of you to ask, after having already decided my mindset.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)1) You are/were the original poster.
2) My response was to your scenario.
3) My response was directed at your scenario.
4) You denied saying or implying what my response addressed.
5) I pointed out your original post.
6) Interesting attempt on your part.
beevul
(12,194 posts)And?
Your response was to something another poster said, not something I said.
Cutesy.
Lets look at your response:
That's not a response TO me, nor is it a response to something I said.
Its a response to something someone else said, agreeing with what that poster said about me.
You deny this and play cutesy.
Trying to iverglas me will get you nowhere.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)lecture hall and started firing. Think of how much better it would have turned out if all 120 students had opened fire.
The gunsters don't seem to think clearly.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)People might have been killed! Oh, wait...
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)With the former CNN reporter who recently used a gun to protect himself and his wife from a criminal?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Or the massacre in the darkened theatre.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)To begin with, I think I have about as much of a chance of being involved in an active shooter event as I would if I were be involved in an airplane crash or hitting the lottery.
Second, I couldn't live with myself if I were responsible for the death or injury of innocent bystanders if I were to be armed and opened fire to feed my ego by thinking I could save the day.
Third, I believe your number is up when it's up- and there really is nothing one can do about it. Whether it is death by illness, accident or inflicted injury by another.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Are you a strict gun control proponent?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)However, only adults live in my home. My husband owned guns, they all had trigger locks on them and when he died, our son was small, so I gave them all to his brother. My son is now grown and his hunting rifle resides in his closet. It was a gift from his grandfather who is an avid sportsman. It was purchased for my son when he was 12 but I forbid him to have it at home until he was mature enough to understand it was not a toy.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Though you aren't one of those whos logic I was looking to have explained, I found what you had to say interesting.
On edit:Although I don't see the 'ego' thing the way you do.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Ego and or fear.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)saving your life is "feeding your ego"? What, other than gun prohibitionist propaganda and movie scripts, makes you think you would not prevail? One thing I noticed about these people, they off themselves at the first sign of resistance. Like Chou, or Clackamas Mall. Chances are, you are better trained than the average mass murderer. They buy or steal the weapon for the occasion, you have actually trained with yours.
Let's look at Virginia Tech. Chou calmly walked from room to room executing whoever he found hiding under desks or whatever. You try to escape out the door, only to find it chained and barricaded. You look out the window and see campus security standing around with their fingers up their asses for almost an hour waiting for a SWAT team to show up.
In a mass murder, you are a target. If it were mass murder by arson, which outnumber mass shootings in Australia and other places, is helping others out to safety, or even yourself, "feeding your ego"?
If you see someone stabbing someone else on the DC metro, and do nothing, is that being rational or something else? I'm sorry, I find that immoral.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)And yet tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people successfully defend themselves each year. That's not to imply you are therefore obligated to arm yourself but neither are those who would rather be armed obligated to disarm.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I gave my reason for why I would prefer to be unarmed. I did not advocate for or against anyone else being armed.
unblock
(52,440 posts)first and foremost, i'd rather be unarmed for the overwhelming majority of the time when a gun is at best useless and at worst an accident waiting to happen.
but yes, i know, i digress, because this thread is instead about the 0.001% chance that i might wind up in an unsuspecting participant to active shooter scenario.
in that extraordinarily remote case, i'd rather not be a "high value target". wielding a gun puts a target on me and makes anyone around me at greater risk, which likely would include my family, of course.
moreover, even if i had a gun, the odds of me successfully using it, in an unplanned, highly stressed scenario, against an active shooter who is in all likelihood vastly more heavily armed than me, has more recently trained for this exact situation, and is far more calm than i could ever be at that moment, are not very good.
so, no thank you, i'll pass.
in any event, as i said, i'd rather base my decision to carry or not to carry on the situations far more likely to actually come to pass in my life. an active shooter event is extremely low on the list, low enough to reasonably ignore.
edited to add: other posts above prompt me to add, my having a gun puts a target on my back in more ways than one -- other people, including police and anyone else carrying a gun, might well suspect that i'm in on it. fog of war, friendly fire, you know.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)What are the odds in the exact same scenario if you had no gun?
Well there was that crackpot who tackled the old man at WalMart and plenty of Controllers here would want to see you SWAT-ted and/or have your arms broken and/or taken out with extreme prejudice. So, I would fear the Controllers more than I would fear the cops, another carrier or even a criminal.
unblock
(52,440 posts)ok, i know i'm visiting the gungeon so i know what you mean; but in my field, your last comment reads like you fear a bunch of vigilante accountants!
watch out! he's got a pencil and a pocket protector! he will write.you.off!
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)for innocent human life.
unblock
(52,440 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)an interlocutor deflects and evades direct questions about whether or not they affirm a woman's right to defend herself as she sees fit from the predations of a rapist or violent stalker. Or to have someone comment that a victim who was stabbed to death even though she had an RO but was waiting on a gun permit should have chosen better partners. Or the deafening silence when asked why lives taken by guns matter but lives saved by guns are part of the problem. Or why "MOAR GUNZ! is never the answer" so we need heavily armed cops to teach these gun humpers a lesson. Or the condemnations of people who only want to protect themselves by posters citing a publication whose EIC violated gun control laws to arm himself. Or who complain about the NRA while panting after a Republican billionaire who surrounds himself with armed mercenaries, oversaw the racist stop-and-frisk policy and whose every political initiative seems to stir-up the GOP base at the expense of Democrats.
It's a day-in and day-out parade of this misogynistic and hypocritical bile from a very dedicated self-appointed cadre. I think the term is quite fitting because they're obviously not in it to save lives.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Thats a dose of reality right there, and I'd bet its painful to some.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a frivolous alert on your post.
unblock
(52,440 posts)personally i'm not interested talking about gun control at the moment, actually generally not much interested in the topic. i was just tickled by the term "controllers" as i work in the financial field and that term means something quite different, struck me as funny.
i read the op and my original reply about choice, not about what the government says or ought to say about it. but like i said, i know what forum i'm in, so if someone wants to espouse their views on gun control, i understand that's the price of admission
beevul
(12,194 posts)Sincerely, when I mentioned the possibility of that post being alerted on, you did not even enter my mind as being a potential alerter.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)I've never seen so many NRA talking points packed into one post, not to mention one paragraph.
You should patent your post.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Because that is who I am referencing, the Controllers. Maybe the problem, then, is the Controllers.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Please feel free to affirm a woman's right to choose the best means for defending herself.
Please feel free to confront the DU poster who stated that the NJ woman who was stabbed to death while waiting for a gun permit should have chosen a better partner.
Please feel free to note that it is a good thing whenever someone is able to defensively employ a gun.
Please feel free to explain to us how gun control laws will be enforced if "MOAR GUNZ! is never the answer."
Please feel free to explain how David Brock of Media Matters is not a hypocrite for violating DC gun control laws to obtain a gun.
Please feel free to explain how Michael Bloomberg is not a hypocrite for surrounding himself with heavily armed mercenaries.
Please feel free to explain how Bloomberg didn't oversee racist policies or stir-up the GOP base at the expense of the Democratic party.
"NRA talking points" is just an admission that none of the points can be refuted.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-why-movement/45-facts-that-challenge-the-nras-talking-points/513823872000347
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Can you even show where my post contained any of those alleged NRA talking points?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)claim are NRA talking points have any relation to anything I stated in my post.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You can't show 1 single, solitary connection between your 45 points and anything I wrote in the earlier post. You're just covering for the embarrassment that is the Controller faction and now it's plain for everyone to see.
This is why when Controllers use weasel words like "reasonable" everyone knows they lack the integrity to constrain themselves from infringing on rights in the future. A movement built on prevarication and deception always fails under the slightest scrutiny.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You're obviously deliberately misrepresenting arguments you can't refute. You have no facts so step 2 for propaganda is to attempt to discredit the speaker. But you can't because the facts are on my side, both in my post about the nature of Controller misogyny and hypocrisy as well as the fact none off those mirror NRA talking points.
beevul
(12,194 posts)safeinOhio
(32,746 posts)About 10 million to 1 I'll never be there. Always zig then zag when you run.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)But also would like to be able to protect myself or family if I am there. The recent stabbing on the DC metro does more to convince me that individuals should be armed than anything else. You've got a situation where a young man beats and stabs another to death and nobody intervened because they were all older or afraid to confront someone with a knife. I would hope that if it was my son being slowly murdered in those circumstances that a bystander would help, and if being armed makes that help more likely then I'm all for it.
To be clear, controllers are complaining about criminals using guns to commit a crime, not the individual who carries for protection and doesn't use a gun to harm someone innocent. Conflating the two is disingenuous.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)It sounds so simple. I wonder what all those victims in the high death toll incidences failed to do.
safeinOhio
(32,746 posts)once you stop to take aim, you are the target. Your odds of saving a life are much greater if you carry a couple of fire extinguisher or take a cpr class. Fires and heart attacks are common, mass shooting are very, very rare.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)We regularly post stories of DGUs. In all of them (practically by definition) the lawful party is not the first to act but still prevails. Considering there are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of DGUs annually these are not one-off scenarios.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)safeinOhio
(32,746 posts)New York City police statistics show that simply hitting a target, let alone hitting it in a specific spot, is a difficult challenge. In 2006, in cases where police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they discharged 364 bullets and hit their target 103 times, for a hit rate of 28.3 percent, according to the departments Firearms Discharge Report. The police shot and killed 13 people last year.
In 2005, officers fired 472 times in the same circumstances, hitting their mark 82 times, for a 17.4 percent hit rate. They shot and killed nine people that year.
In all shootings including those against people, animals and in suicides and other situations New York City officers achieved a 34 percent accuracy rate (182 out of 540), and a 43 percent accuracy rate when the target ranged from zero to six feet away. Nearly half the shots they fired last year were within that distance.
I'd say a pretty poor percentage of hitting a target by trained police. Even from 6 feet away..
Trying to kill someone when they are trying to kill you isn't easy and those events aren't like the movies. Still, defensive gun use occurs on a regular basis and I hope you aren't seriously suggesting that instead of being able to protect yourself you simply hope you can outrun the bullet.
safeinOhio
(32,746 posts)on a regular basis too. OK, I seem to read about people playing dead and living to tell about it quite often.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)one happens several hundred thousand times a year according to at least 17 criminology studies. Fatal gun accidents are, what, five hundred at the most?
safeinOhio
(32,746 posts)I'd like to see those figures. The post was about "active shooters" not a perceived threat. False equivalence perhaps.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The CDC uses 700K in their report a couple of years ago.
You changed the subject about NYPD, but active shooters are rare, and probably even more rare among mass murderers in general. They also tend to target places where resistance is less than likely.
safeinOhio
(32,746 posts)imbellished, imagination or outright lies.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Your logical fallacy is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
sarisataka
(18,883 posts)studying gun violence, as so many wish would happen, since they not not using valid data, in your opinion?
beevul
(12,194 posts)How 'well trained' are they?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and statistically have a lower miss and hitting innocents than cops. There are a couple of reasons for this
1-individual choice of weapon
2-better familiarity with firearms in general
3-CCW holders, or shooting hobbyists, take training seriously instead of just going to the range once a year and fire half a box of shells. The level of police training, other than use of force rules, is about the same as a hunter safety course 14 year olds take for their first hunting licence. Not impressive.
Cops are not that well trained. Also, there is that 12 pound trigger pull on their modified Glocks.
safeinOhio
(32,746 posts)young adults that just got their guns.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)you don't have to be World Cup or Olympic material to spray bullets into crowds. You also proved my point in an earlier post.
safeinOhio
(32,746 posts)from daily's
Two drivers are dead after a road rage incident escalated into a shootout. The incident happened around 6:45p.m. Wednesday on M-66 near Steele Street.
Witnesses tell WZZM 13 a one driver was following another driver too closely. The first driver pulled into a car wash parking lot and the other driver followed them into the parking lot.
Witnesses say the driver of the following car fired shots, and the first driver returned fire. Both drivers were shot and killed. Authorities say both men, ages 43 and 56, had licenses to carry concealed weapons.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)using your logic, Kermit Gosnell is typical of abortion providers.
Also, news reports, especially early ones, are almost always inaccurate. They also skip important facts to make them meaningless.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)The average NYPD officer has little or no experience with firearms.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/training_nypd/firearm_tatics.shtml
Also the NYPD issues handguns that have a trigger pull weight of 12 pounds, which is hard for anyone with minimal training to shoot well
http://forums.officer.com/t172751/
http://www.realpolice.net/forums/ask-cop-112/101995-does-nypd-still-require-heavy-trigger.html
So combining guns that are hard to shoot well with minimal training with people with little or no prior firearms experience you get NYPD officers who have a high miss to hit ratio.
An interesting link: http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/117909-Study-reveals-important-truths-hidden-in-the-details-of-officer-involved-shootings/
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)Their training regimen is notorious in the law enforcement community for its laxity and inadequacy. Furthermore, in their infinite wisdom, the NYC powers-that-be have decreed that NYPD Glock pistols must have a 12-pound trigger pull weight in order to minimize the risk of accidental discharge. This is more than double the pull weight of a standard Glock. Any target shooter will tell you that the higher the trigger pull weight, the more difficult it is to shoot the gun accurately. Add to that the stress of actual shooting situations, and you'll start to see the real reasons for the abysmal accuracy numbers.
Ironically, a policy that was intended to protect the public is actually endangering them. The 2012 Empire State Building incident is a case in point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting
The sad part is that accidental discharges are best addressed through training, not through hardware. Keep your finger off the trigger until you need to fire. It's something that becomes second-nature if you train enough. NYPD officers don't.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...could cite three real-world example of the same
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)I'm not aware of an instance in which someone attempted to stop a crime and shot a bystander. Perhaps it happens all the time, but then you'd think it would be national news.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Terry Pratchett, Jingo
pkdu
(3,977 posts)Are you yahoos really unaware of the incident outside Empire State Building in 2013?
Do I really have to find you a link?
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Warpy
(111,417 posts)with no chance to play dead until he turned his back and I could get away or throw a chair.
Don't forget that two of the dead in Chattanooga were not only armed, but had the time to fire.
Guns don't save you.
beevul
(12,194 posts)pkdu
(3,977 posts)or should everyone have been armed , then cops wouldnt have shot them????
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/nyregion/bystander-shot-by-police-near-empire-state-building-sues.html?_r=0
beevul
(12,194 posts)Not so much on non-police.
I'm pretty sure, the 'friendly fire' being referred to and in question, is on the part of non-leo.
But if you aren't sure, why not ask that poster what he/she was referring to?
pkdu
(3,977 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 23, 2015, 05:51 AM - Edit history (1)
The poster was referring to non-leo.
Your example is not non-leo.
Don't be bitter and nasty about it.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)To jump to the conclusion that "guns don't save you"? Well, the CDC disagrees, and I'm certain the soldier that fought in Afghanistan or Iraq disagrees. Setting those example aside, there's a recent story about a CNN reporter using a gun that did "save" him and his wife, and in fact this happens all the time. But don't let facts get in the way of your position on guns.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)giving them time to escape while firing. Also, at long distance rifle usually trumps pistol. Yes, guns do save you, and do hundreds of thousands of times a year. However, being armed is no guarantee. Being unarmed and defenseless is.
matt819
(10,749 posts)Active shooter. Cool, huh?
Let's see. The chances you'll be in such a situation are about the same as being hit by a meteorite. And, unless you've been trained for just this scenario, and practiced it regularly, the chances are you'll do more harm than good.
Don't bother responding. I never spend time in this group. Your post just called out for a response.
I'm outta here. Unarmed.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)HFRN
(1,469 posts)event that i would ever encounter an active shooter scenario
but in the unlikely event i did find myself in one, would i like to have a gun? sure
but even then, I don't think that would be my only option to protect myself and others
samsingh
(17,602 posts)or had them at home.
I would prefer they didn't have those guns in the first place.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,483 posts)luvspeas
(1,883 posts)And I don't have to explain my logic. You didn't explain your lack of it.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Nobody said you did. If you don't want anyone to understand the 'why' of your choice, hey, fine by me.
luvspeas
(1,883 posts)In my opinion anyone who wants to own a gun is a spineless coward and doesn't have enough good sense to be trusted with one.
But that's just my opinion.
beevul
(12,194 posts)That includes, I assume, people that already own them?
I did just say what?
Cite for me what you're referring to, so that there is no confusion, please.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Women and minorities are the fastest growing segment of "spineless cowards."
Here is a picture of the presumably stalwart heroes that would be enforcing any and all gun control laws --
beardown
(363 posts)Surprisingly hot debate too. At one point, a twin engine fighter supporter said that if a twin engine fighter lost an engine it could still get the pilot back to base. A single engine supporter replied that that almost never happened. I replied, you have a lot better chance limping home if you lose an engine in a twin engine fighter than if you lose an engine in a single engine fighter.
Same as here, unlikely that you will ever find yourself in a crazed shooter situation, but if you do, being armed is a much better option that not being armed. Of course, this mostly applies if you are comfortable and capable with the gun you have. Otherwise, police that respond to shootings wouldn't be carrying guns because they were ineffective in stopping the bad shooter.
Given the numbers, you are much, much more likely to scare away a bad guy by just letting them know that you have a gun than actually wind up in a mass shooting incident so this question ignores the lion's share of defensive gun usages as part of the debate.
Kind of a friendly boost to non-gun debatees.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)...recommend that action. Very few DGUs actually end up with a criminal being shot. I rather suspect the huge proportion of DGUs are connected with B&E or home invasion.
Response to beevul (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Kennah
(14,352 posts)Homeland Security advises "Run, Hide, Fight" in an active shooter scenario. Whether one is armed or not, this is sound advise. It's what I was trained to do with a gun.
Move off the line of attack
Seek cover or concealment
Verbal challenge
Shoot
Being armed doesn't mean you automatically engage a fight, even if it's an active shooter scenario. A SWAT trained cop responding to an active shooter scenario likely isn't going to enter a building alone with reports of a gunman armed with a rifle. They'd enter only with one other cop, probably only with three others.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)But if you can't run or hide, fighting would be the only option. And it's a little hard to do that unarmed
roody
(10,849 posts)AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)A civilized society of people regarded as children, perhaps.
Deal with the problem people, and leave those of us who aren't alone.
AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)to have an unarmed society?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)individual people can be quite savage. Being able to defend one's self from those sorts of people is an inherent human right.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I'm saying that someone that defines 'civilized' as you do, regards people as 'children' to be controlled, and does not differentiate in that context between those who behave and those who don't.
Much like the teacher that punishes the entire class because of the clown or two in the back who wont stop talking or shooting spitballs.
This is a presumptuous, arrogant, offensive sentiment, shared by many many gun control pushers.
In a 'civilized' country, one does not punish people or interfere with their rights, because of what someone else does.
Lets apply this on a small scale and see how well you like it.
Hypothetical:
One of your antigun buddies just posted something offensive.
Instead of hiding only the offending post, were gonna hide ALL the anti-gun posts, and ban ALL anti-gun posters from posting.
Sound 'civilized' to you?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)People of all races who conquered and enslaved others for thousands of years by claiming they were civilizing the "savages". It is the word of imperialists and xenophobes.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)However, if a society still contains predatory humans (which will be the case for the foreseeable long-term future), I'm going to arm myself. I'm not physically capable of defending myself against the statistically-likely attacker (a young, reasonably fit male) without some sort of mechanical advantage. I'm simply too small at 5'3", 110lbs. I'm pretty fit and could probably outrun most attackers over longer distances...but even that does me no good if they can out-sprint me in the first 50 yards.
I'd love to think our species is evolving away from violence. But that's not happening in my lifetime (or many, many generations worth of lifetimes). I'm remaining armed.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I have this recollection that after a mall shooting of some sort in the last couple of years, that it was determined that there were several people with weapons on them that chose not to use them. Their primary fear was that they would be mistaken for the shooter, or as an accomplice and be shot themselves.
I suspect that the primary "tool" one would like to have is a good escape plan. Failing that, a good hiding place. Apparently, judging from those who have actually been there and had an option, having a fire arm is way down the list in these situations.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)A bunch of people shooting in a dark theater would have made the situation so much better....
sanatanadharma
(3,747 posts)EVERYONE DIES!!! PERIOD
I do not live in a world of fear. I do not need a gun. I will die. I WILL NOT KILL.
I live in a real world where evil is manifest in the world, BY THE GUN in the hands of the (no-one ever saw that coming) previously seemingly normal, now-unhinged gun lover, buyer, collector, defender, idolizer, 2nd amendment worshiping, owner whose gun (or perhaps mind) was misused, misplaced, lost, left behind, dropped, stolen, misused (sic), mis-educated, etc.
The karma of killing (however done and for whatever reason) is heavy and can't be escaped. I say this with same certainty that scientist have of gravity, the same assurance that the proponents of an armed America have in their claims (e.g. post #62, others) that guns in pockets bring safety. I admit that my claims are not verifiable (we do not see our next lives or hell). The more-guns-reduce-gun-violence argument is, here and now, factually disproved by comparing data from USA states.
[img][/img]
Source And, yes, the chart is for households so the gun defender can say that a family of four was 75% under-armed
Any list of purported gun-saves-stories needs to be placed along side a list of dead-baby-by-gun stories.
It is beyond my understanding that too many in this nation are willfully blind to causality and won't clearly admit the ONE COMMON problem in gun violence. I reject the idea that needing to be armed to face American society is the new normal.
The current trajectory of NRA (no rational arguments) gun-violence will come to be seen in America as an evil cancer that must be removed, and can be removed. Of course, some well defended gum owners will likely die in their bunkers of insanity but then they will discover the truth of moral "gravity", karma. Even this well armed man was powerless to stop Yama, death; 1200 guns, 2 tons of ammo.
If I were to change my behavior it would be to boldly step up to everyone open-carry, armed intimidator I see and willingly die in moral superiority, it they can't hear my words, "You are fucking insane!"
beevul
(12,194 posts)Feel free. You should know, however, that the 'gun saves' outnumber 'dead-baby-by-gun' incidents fy a factor of 1000, at a minimum.
Tell us more about causality where guns are concerned, considering while you do, that there are 80+ million gun owners, and 300+ million guns in their hands.
Explain how 'causality' fits, when 99.9 percent of guns aren't used to kill or shoot others.
Reject away. Choose not to be armed. I have no issue with that. But if you try to make my decisions for me, we are going to have an issue.
And the vpc? Please.
That map represents gun violence in the actual sense, that is, it isn't diluted into a population that isn't committing gun violence to muddy the waters. It paints a bit of a different picture than the VPC does.
I couldn't decipher the rest of your screed, sorry.
On edit:
Interesting name - sanatanadharma
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Maybe those carrying guns are imposing payment for the karmic debt of others.
But, then again, migrating through innumerable lifetimes ultimately leads to everyone ceasing to be everyone and just becoming All. So eventually those you're railing against are all going to be together.
o
k
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,483 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)I should have known that there was going to be a theater shooting a couple hours after I made the OP?
stone space
(6,498 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,483 posts)I was never any good with a handgun and have no time in my life to even try to get better. On the ROTC rifle team in college I was stalled at sharpshooter. I was never able to get my standing score over 90% for expert.
I've do a safety assessment regularly and doubt highly that I'll ever be in that situation. I despise large crowds in public places. I don't go to malls and haven't been to one since 2009 (smallish Manhattan Village mall in Manhattan Beach). I don't like theaters and I went to my last movie in a year that started with 1. Most weeks I'm at a small neighborhood grocery store and 2 large airports. At the airports I generally make it from the curb to the gate in less than 20 minutes due to TSA Precheck. I work in a small office building with a lot of security and layers of key card locked perimeters. I make the occasional visit to pet store for dog and kitty supplies but IMHO folks with animals are better adjusted and lower risk.
For those reasons I don't/won't be carrying.
I know many folks live more exciting lives than I do. I applaud their commitments to preparedness and respect their decisions in choosing to do so.
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)much time on someone hands, I'm not exactly opposed to using my legal use of firearms not so much to protect me, but for my other family members, police are aware of threats from past on line ramblings but this is new news for me, it's legal now on Texas to carry, my real fear is innocent ones getting hit, people are such idiots sometimes
Wasted ignorance, so these days I'm iffy on the laws on who should be able to carry
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Unless it is being held on my property, I would prefer not to participate or attend such an event.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and forces his choice on to everyone else.